This revision petition has been filed under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against impugned order dated 16.11.2012 passed by the Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short he State Commission in FA No. 662/2011 ar Gregorious Memorial Muthoot Medical Centre Vs. Skariah Mathai,vide which, while allowing appeal against the order dated 16.08.2011, passed by District Forum, Pathenamthitta, the consumer complaint no. 121 of 2007 was ordered to be dismissed. 2. Brief facts of the case are that Mrs. Sosamma Mathew, who was the wife of petitioner/complainant no. 1 and mother of petitioners/complainant nos. 2 to 5 was admitted at respondent/OP No. 1 Medical Centre on 1.2.2007 with complaints of pain in the neck and pleuritic pain on the right side of the chest for two weeks before admission. She was diagnosed as a patient of Type II Diabetic Mellitus / Hypertension, Bronchogenic Carcinoma with pleural metastasis, malignant mesothelioma and Coronary Artery Heart Disease. She was admitted in the Intensive Care Unit (ICU) under the direct supervision of respondent nos. 1 to 4. It has been stated that the condition of the patient worsened on 3.2.2007 when she had chest pain followed by cardio-respiratory arrest. She was intubated and put on ventilator by respondent no. 3 who was anaesthetist on duty. It has been alleged that the relatives and family members of the patient were not allowed to see her when she was in the ICU, neither they were given any information about the condition of the patient and her treatment. It has also been alleged that the patient was put on ventilator by the OPs without the consent of the relatives. The complainants have stated that the condition of the patient worsened due to wrong medication, medical negligence, improper management and care, due to which she developed oedema and other respiratory heart complications and she had to be put on ventilator. The OPs also served huge medical bills upon the complainants which was not bearable for them. They were asked to pay a sum of Rs.43,000/- which included Rs.27,000/- as hospital charges and Rs.16,000/- for medicines. They had to pay that money by borrowing from others. The complainants, therefore, requested the OPs to discharge the patient so that she could be taken to some other hospital for treatment. The patient was discharged on 08.02.2007 and admitted to Fellowship Mission Hospital at Kumbanad on the same day. In the said hospital, she was never put on ventilator and given treatment and medication of a mild nature and she remained their till 15.02.2007. The patient, Mrs. Sosamma Mathew, issued a notice to the respondent hospital on 5.03.2007 and also made a complaint before the Chief Minister who asked the District Medical Officer to enquire into the matter and submit report. Mrs. S. Mathew, however, died on 31.07.2007 due to lung cancer. The present complaint has been filed by her husband and children. The District Forum allowed the complaint on 16.08.2011 and directed the first OP to return 50% of the treatment expenses along with compensation of Rs.25,000/- and cost of Rs.10,000/-. The District Forum also allowed interest @10% p.a. from the date of the order till realisation. It was also stated that the OP Hospital could realise the decreed amount from OP No. 5, Insurance Company, if there was a valid insurance policy. An appeal was filed against this order before the State Commission which was allowed by the Commission and the order of the District Forum was set aside and the complaint was dismissed. It is against this order that the complainants have filed the present revision petition. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and examined the entire material on record. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner invited our attention to copies of discharge summary made by two hospitals where the patient was admitted for treatment. He vehemently argued that at the first hospital, i.e., OP No. 1, the patient was constantly kept on ventilator, which was not required. The moment the patient was discharged by the first hospital, she walked away on her own and was taken to the Fellowship Mission Hospital where no life-saving support was given. The patient was fit to be discharged on 06.02.2007 but the OPs, with an intention to make money, kept the patient with them in the ICU. The discharge summary given by the first hospital indicates that the patient was being discharged against medical advice on the written consent given by the relatives. The discharge summary made by Fellowship Mission Hospital, however, shows that the patient was admitted for palliative care and was given normal treatment. On the date of discharge, the oedema had improved as compared to the time of admission. Learned Counsel also invited our attention to the complaint dated 06.12.2007 in which it has been alleged that the complainants had to pay through their nose for hospitalisation and follow-up treatment and medicines, due to wrong medication, medical negligence and improper management and care of a critical and terminally-ill patient. 5. An examination of the facts of the case make it very clear that as stated by the petitioners/complainants themselves, the patient Mrs. Sosamma Mathew was a critical and terminally-ill patient, who was admitted in the OP No. 1 Hospital with multiple problems. As stated earlier, the complainants had made a complaint to the Chief Minister against OP No. 1 Hospital and the matter was enquired into by the District Medical Officer (Health), Pathenamthitta. The DMO (Health) submitted a detailed report after recording the statements of the complainants and the concerned doctors. The report of the DMO shows clearly that the patient was brought to OP No. 1 Hospital on 1.02.2007 with fluid accumulation in the right side of the chest. After check-up, it was detected that the accumulation of fluid in chest was Misothilioma, a type of cancer. In order to confirm the same, CT scan of the chest was done and it was found that she was suffering from bronchogenic cancer that had spread to pleura, and it was confirmed that the disease was Misothilioma. The relatives of the patient were informed that for expert treatment and diagnosis, the patient had to be taken to Regional Cancer Centre, Thiruvananthapuram. The report of the DMO makes it very clear that on 3.2.2007, after midnight, the functioning of heart and lungs of Mrs. Sosamma Mathew had suddenly stopped and in order to save her life, she was put on ventilator with the consent of relatives. Her life was saved due to the emergency treatment given to her. The report has further highlighted that the complainants had financial difficulties and was unable to bear the expenses. The complainant no. 3, Mathew Varghese is the clerk of an Advocate. 6. It is also made out from the facts on record that on 07.02.2007, the hospitals doctors tried to remove the ventilator from the patient, but the same had to be reconnected after three hours. On 08.02.2007, the ventilator was disconnected on the insistence of the complainants. The patient was discharged and taken to other hospital where she remained in treatment for another one week. From the material on record, especially the report of the DMO, it becomes clear that OP No. 1 Hospital tried their best to take care of the patient, who was in a critical and terminally ill stage. She was put to examination by doctors belonging to all concerned specialists and in fact, they were able to save her life when her heart and lungs stopped functioning on 3.02.2007. We, therefore, tend to agree with the findings of the State Commission that the allegation of medical negligence against the respondents does not stand proved. The complaint has been made for the reason that the complainants had difficulty in meeting the expenditure of the Hospital and they even approached the Chief Minister for getting a relief from the Distress Relief Fund. We, therefore, find no reason to interfere with the well-reasoned order passed by the State Commission which does not suffer from any irregularity, illegality or jurisdictional error. The revision petition is, therefore, ordered to be dismissed and the order of the State Commission upheld with no order as to costs.